A quick look at the Adequacy.orgTraffic Stats page will show you a steep increase in users here in the last week. This is obviously due to the technical problems at Kuro5hin.org, a popular site to be sure, but one that unfortunately relies on Open Source software for critical areas such as their Operating System and their Web Log Engine itself. So now Adequacy.org has had the dubious honor of playing host to the masses of refugees from over there.

This is an unhappy thing for Adequacy.org because this site is not intended for people like them. Adequacy.org is a specialist site for only rare individuals; probably a countably small, finite number of rare individuals. The odds are good that you are not one of those rare individuals, and so the decent thing would be for you to leave.

Since we now have an exceptionally large number of uninvited new users, now would be a good time to go over some of the things that make you "Adequate" and what things do not. As a first approximation, it is safe to guess that we really don't want you here. If you persist in thinking you are the exception, read on and we shall see about that.

If you haven't followed the first link in this article, go back and click on it now. Can you see the traffic stats? Or did you get a 404?

The Traffic Stats page is one of the special pages that only Adequacy.org editors can see. Aside from them and their close friends, and perhaps three or four other people, no one can view the Special Pages. I bring this up to make an important point about how Adequacy.org is supposed to work.

Here I am, placing this article on the front page of Adequacy.org for "all" to read, yet the very first link, the one that the whole article rests upon, is not viewable by the general public. A problem? No, not in the least. I don't care about anyone reading this or understanding it besides the other editors and their select associates. The small Adequacy.org in-crowd is one of the most educated, insightful and talented cliques to be found anywhere on the Internet. The opinions of a group like this carry enormous weight amongst the intelligentsia, the public intellectuals whose ideas filter down to the popular opinion-makers whose words in turn influence the reading public and the digerati, and thence to the masses at large. Ideas flow in one direction here: downwards, from the betters to their inferiors.

So a typical Adequacy.org article is a piece of this ongoing conversation amongst these top public intellectuals, and we don't want intruders coming along disrupting the synergistic power of that exclusive dialogue. Most common people, such as the "Kurobots," meaning typical Kur5hin.org users, don't belong in that kind of conversation. They generally aren't capable of understanding it, and won't live long enough to ever "get it," to use a popular catchphrase.

Let me use my girlfriend poltroon as an example of what I'm getting at. Like others associated with the Adequacy.org inner-circle, she is exceptionally talented in many different fields: as a highly sought-after software developer at the world's leader in computer graphics research, tools production, and original content creation. At the same time, poltroon is an artist whose work is a glimpse at where the rest of the world of visual arts will be in five years or more.

She has created paintings and drawings such as this portrait, and this still life. Or this scene. Quite nice, right? This is the kind of art that the public loves and pays top dollar for. You can understand it and you can see the skill that went into it. This artist really knows how to draw, doesn't she?

Yes indeed. Now... listen.

Poltroon hasn't made anything like that in over twelve years. Those accessible and comprehensible works were done before the artist was in her early teens. They are childhood doodles, and when it was recently suggested that she perhaps make a few more paintings like that, just to please people, she replied "but then I would be a prostitute."

If you have ever checked out poltroon's portfolio site, you know that her recent work is nothing like that. The kind of thing she does now, in response to her true artistic feeling, is not accessible at all to those of you who like the fox and rabbit painting so much. They have those at Amazon.com, by the way. Perhaps you should be shopping there right now, instead of pretending you belong at Adequacy.org, no?

Each in his and her own way, all of the Adequacy.org editors create work that is similarly inaccessible to the typical vocationally but illiberally educated sysadmins and web monkeys that populate sites like the lately off-line Kuro5hin.org. When they blunder over here to Adequacy.org, they are usually put off quickly and never return. Inexplicably, some of these lowbrows don't leave. They sometimes react strongly to the issues that they think they have been invited to "debate" with the Adequacy.org staff, and so hang around trying to match wits with them. Or, sadly, they see humor here. They can't understand the art of this site, and so deal with it by telling themselves it is some kind of joke. They call it "parody" or "satire."

It isn't. But of course they -- you -- don't understand at all.

This should be enough to tell you that you don't belong here and clearly are not wanted. But what I observe happens is that many of these simple fools will tell themselves that they really do like this kind of stuff. Pretend that they understand it, when they really can't fathom a bit of it. So the point of this article is to try to convince you to be honest with yourself. Why keep pretending, anyway? What can you possibly gain by deluding yourself into thinking that you would want a painting like this one hanging in your home. Does it really speak to you at all? Do you even like looking at it? If you were forced to explain what the work is saying, you couldn't do it to save your life, could you? Could you name even one of the references in it? Explicate even one of the symbols? No, you could not.

There is no shame in admitting it. Go ahead admit what you are thinking: It's just intellectual snobbery. Insufferable arrogance. The emperor has no clothes. That's not art! It's crap! My kid sister could draw better than that!

There, there. You believe it. You know it in your bones. Is there any conceivable reason to pretend otherwise? Do you think you are impressing anyone by pretending you're "Adequate"? You aren't.

There. Can I be any more clear about this? Is there any room for misinterpretation here? No. It is crystal clear: you don't belong at Adequacy.org, and Adequacy.org doesn't want you. Other places want you, and you know you are happier there. So don't stay. Go. Go! Get lost already, please?

us pre-k5 and pre-geekzoid people? the ones who came along when this site was orignally made? what is to become of us? are we to go to Slashdot? <slaps himself for mentioning it>Sig sigger

Dear MR. Elenchoon (2.33 / 3) (#11)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 24th, 2001 at 10:22:53 PM PST

I go becase i have the special problems to the alt.health.why.my.pee.red usenet groop and i get many hlpfull ideas to help with my special problems like the epsom salt and lime juce thing and i write "who thingks up the good ideas?" And they write "it is the smart peopl at Aedquacy.org. So i com to this site but i do not undeardstn the topic s of disucsson they are to high level i am not a smaert like you. So now i read yor article and I kno i am not intelligence enough to be on the Aequdcy.org. I will go back to alt.health.why.my.pee.red were i belonng. k thx bye

The small Adequacy.org in-crowd is one of the most educated, insightful and talented cliques to be found anywhere on the Internet. The opinions of a group like this carry enormous weight amongst the intelligentsia, the public intellectuals whose ideas filter down to the popular opinion-makers whose words in turn influence the reading public and the digirati, and thence to the masses at large.

Oh gods, that was good! Thank you, that was the best I've heard all week! Yes yes, I know, my amusement is going to get me zeroed. But I had to thank you anyway. It's good to know that your inclusion among the Editors hasn't violated any standards.

They've been telling me this isn't the site for me since 07/13/2001 10:27:33 AM EAST, but I don't care. I love reading stuff like this and inviting others to laugh with me. It beats working.

That pretty much says it all. Why is the fact that something is preferable to working justification for anything? Where is your work ethic? Any excuse to down shovels is acceptable, is that it? Why do you think that the fact that you treat adequacy like some kind of internet "smoko" makes it ok for you to be here?

I get it. You were being nonchalant, in order to indicate that it really doesn't matter so much to you whether you are here or not. An attempt, I assume, to imply that there is something lacking in those who are so annoyed at you being here. Unfortunately, the unintended implication is that you do not know how to spend your free time well or your work-time profitably. Any internet site is a good way to throw another few minutes of your life away doing something you don't really care about. Is this really a great way to spend the limited time that you have? If you died tomorrow, would you be content knowing that you spent the last days of your life posting on adequacy?

If your parents knew that you would spend your working life dodging responsibility on internet sites that you don't really care for, do you think they would have gone to the trouble of raising you?

Unfortunately, my job description includes staying home full-time while my wife goes to work. Ordinarily I would want to be the one heading out to be the bread-winner, but our daughter is still too young for day care and my wife got the first job offer. So when I'm not cooking (badly), cleaning, washing up, feeding the baby, cleaning the baby or attempting to entertain the baby, I get online and see what's going on in the world.

Then, once I've taken a look at what the Web has to offer, I come here to remind myself that no matter how bad the world can get, it could always get worse.

If your parents knew that you would spend your working life dodging responsibility on internet sites that you don't really care for, do you think they would have gone to the trouble of raising you?

Oh, I see. So raising a child is nothing but a way of investing your money. Much like a retirement fund. And if your investment doesn't pay off, you can always abandon the brats, or use them for cooking sausage or as sexual toys.

Lord God, it is people like this make me disgusted at being part of the human race.

Money isnt remotely connected to religion. Money represents our transmutation of the environment in order to satisfy purely biological imperatives such as food and sex. I'm afraid you are confusing materialism with religion.

Traditionally in conversative families, children were resources to be used to help spread out the weight of chores. They were to perform all of the manual labor they were physically capable of. Older children were to watch the younger children. They were expected to be "seen and not heard" around adults, to be respectful to adults at all times and beaten (sometimes severely) if they disobeyed. One of the laws of the good Old Testament Bible was that a child who did not respect his parents was to be stoned to death. Then, once the child was grown and an adult in their own right, that child was expected to take in their now-aged parents, still expected to submit to their will, and take care of them until they died. At which point the child could expect the same of their children.

I'm all for the wisdom that says "train up a child in the way they should go." Teaching a child the lessons they need to survive and prosper as they make their way in the world makes sense to me. In my case, I intend to instill within my child my "godless liberal ethics," which largely involves showing her what I've learned and teaching her to question "truth." I do not expect her to embrace everything that I've learned for myself, only to allow me to protect her until the point that she can stand on her own and make her own decisions. At which point I intend to stand back and let her make those decisions, ready to support and encourage her when she needs it.

As opposed to teaching her the conservative wisdom that, as a female, she's worthless unless she's married and popping out multiple children.

Hmm...which line of thinking do you think objectifies children more? Conservative or liberal?

I think the only objectification going on here is your objectification of conservatives.

Please try to learn what true conservative values[1] are all about, rather than spouting ye olde liberalist propaganda.

[1] 99% of the time, when a liberalist says "conservative values", they simply mean "outdated liberalist values". Liberalist and "conservative"[2] values are really two completely different and orthogonal ways of viewing the world.

[2] Personally, I hate the word "conservative values". It has the stink of a dirty liberalist-invented word to it. I prefer to say "Christian values".

Well, coming from a staunchly conservative upbringing with Republican parents doing the traditional Christian lifestyle, I rather think I'm familiar with conservative Christian values. My assessment stands. I've only lately come into my "liberalist propaganda" as you put it, so I'm still amused to be labeled as such.

Furthermore, I really don't care what you think of labels or descriptions. You've already established that the meanings of words are irrelevant to you; you'll assign what definitions you prefer. Whether you say "conservative" or "Christian" or "lumbugged," you're the only one who will ever know what you mean. Similarly, your repeated use of "liberal" as an epithet only confirms your inherent weakness. You can't defend your statements, so you fall back on emotion-charged insults to end the debate.

However, feel free to continue to rant and rave with regard to your indefensible positions. Whether or not there's any logic or consistency to them, they're your indefensible positions and you're entitled to hold to them all you wish. Just ignore the snickers in the background.

Look, I don't care. I don't want to prove anything at all to you and your kind. I'm not the one to be preaching to you; I'm not decent enough and patient enough to be able to preach to ingrates like you.

Those who have ears will hear. You, however, are free to continue to live in blindness and continue to suck up to the dictionary. The first commandment says: "thou shalt not have no other gods before me". You have destroyed God inside you, only to fill the gaping hole inside you with a dictionary.

Each of us is free to shape his destiny, both in the Christian and existentialist sense. You decided to trade your eternal soul for Merriam and Webster. To each his own.

If you didn't want to prove anything, then why are you posting? Maybe you want to prove something to yourself?

Children are objects of affection, love, hate, beatings, tears and dinner just like the rest of us. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Secondly, I am a liberal conservative. Conservative is not the opposite of liberal. That is just a big liberal wymanist myth. To answer the original question by john "space" gotti, which you were far to busy to respond to, it is obviously wymanists which objectificate children - far more than communist liberal conservatives like yourself. I, btw, am a REAL capitalist liberal conservative.

And as for your ideas that liberals should not be allowed to raise children....
I say shame on you. Fie! Fie! Liberals are allowed to eat children just like the rest of us.

I post because I want to communicate with all sorts of different people, not because I want to prove my own manliness. I believe that people need to talk to as wide an audience as possible, even to people that you would normally consider to be your ideological and social adversaries.

Secondly, why did you decide that I am a communist? I am nothing of the sort. Communism, in essence, is nothing but a secular-humanist form of demon worship. (Not a contradiction, if you know even the least bit of communist history, you'd see how true that is.)

Thirdly, you seem to have missed the killer sarcasm in my original post. I object to the view that children are an "investment". I think that that objectification of children is satanic. (Not in the sense of "abstract evil", rather in the sense "action that appeases satan".)

Is that you conflate your values with those of others. American "Conservatives" are nothing of the sort, of course. They're nothing but the same old liberalist revisionists. What, conservative because you uphold Martin Luther? When did the meaning of that one change?

Your other problem is that you believe that you freed yourself from your parents' values by inverting them and repudiating them. Hint: you didn't.

This article does an excellent job of telling the new reader <i>exactly</i> what to expect of adequacy.org.

...whether it intends to or not.

404 (1.00 / 1) (#15)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 03:31:26 AM PST

This is obviously due to the technical problems at Kuro5hin.org , a popular site to be sure, but one that unfortunately relies on Open Source software for critical areas such as their Operating System and their Web Log Engine itself

Here's what it returns the link returns:

Not Found

The requested URL ../../images/mortimer/www2001/index.html was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80

Now what was that you were saying about open source?

Besides anyone who actually visited Kuro5hin.org, and read the description of the porblem, could tell you that it's obviously a hardware problem caused by idiots moving the equipment. So don't attempt to make this out to be like it's a problem with their software.

How many times do we have to go through this? (5.00 / 1) (#17)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 03:49:13 AM PST

You are obviously using an outdated, obsolete, and illegal web browser to view adequacy. You should be aware that this is not only illegal, it violates the specific conditions laid out in adequacy's TOS. Hacking is not cool, nor is it likely to gain you any respect here. It doesn't take brains to be a script kiddie, and you aren't impressing anyone. Please stop hacking into adequacy, before you start a DoS.

I'm using an 'illegal' browser. Will you please sue the shit out of me? Really, I dare you. If you can't put up, shut your flapping mouth.

Fucking liberalist authoritarian lackeys. When the government makes sausage out of your liver and lampshades out of your skin, I will be laughing.

--Peace and much love...

Are you OK today, man? (none / 0) (#32)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 02:40:23 PM PST

You seem a little more cranky than usual. Someone forget to give you your milk or something? All I'm trying to do here is protect adequacy from the threat of internet hack attacks. Why are you getting in my face about this?

Don't interrupt him now. He's on a holy crusade to Save the World from the Liberal Scare. His purpose is to purify mankind's thinking from even the slightest trace of evil liberalist thought. Even if you thought you were a conservative before, he'll show you the Light.

The adequacy editors aren't being authoritarian - adequacy is their property. That means that they get to decide what you can do to it. If the adequacy editors decide (entirely reasonably in my opinion) that they are not going to tolerate people attacking their servers with hacker browsers, then that is their choice to make.

Maybe in your crypto-communist fantasy world you get to tell other people what they can and can't do with their property, but fortunately this is America, and here we have rights that other people can't just trample over. Until you and your socialist buddies are in charge I suggest you shut the hell up and fuck off back to Cuba.

only you (none / 0) (#51)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 08:45:48 AM PST

<b>Maybe in your crypto-communist fantasy world you get to tell other people what they can and can't do with their property, but fortunately this is America, and here we have rights that other people can't just trample over.</b>

<p>So this site can only be accessed by Americans? You must one of those stupid asses, like the politicians that think the Internet only exists in America or that American owns the Internet.

they are not going to tolerate people attacking their servers with hacker browsers, then that is their choice to make.

What exactly is a hacker browser? If you are simply using it to browse how is that attacking the server?

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

hack the planet! (none / 0) (#62)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 11:48:16 AM PST

What exactly is a hacker browser?

Any browser other Internet Explorer?

If you are simply using it to browse how is that attacking the server?

There's a lot of stupid people out there that don't know how things work. They think that as long as you are at a site you are sucking bandwidth from the web server until you go to another site. That is simply not true. I issued a page request for where I wanted to go on the site. That's it. I did not issue NUMEROUS page requests to the webserver. That is a DoS Attack.

Then they want to say that some HTML clients are illegal and banned from viewing these web pages and/or header information. Every web browser can do that. Then why can I still view them? "Well our legal department blah blah blah..." What a joke. Well I guess you'll just have to ban them all then, huh? Was I forced to Accept the terms of service for this site at any time? NOPE. Is there any code on the site which does not permit access by specific browsers? NOPE. Then sit and twirl, bitch.

In that case, how do the admins test Adequacy.org? They're running Apache (see the message you get if you hit an internal page and you're not an editor), but I assume they're not running Apache on NT. IE isn't available for Linux or BSD.

I posted this using Mozilla 0.9.6. So sue me. By the way, I don't see any link to the TOS on the home page.

--
Pinocchio

Hackers browser (none / 0) (#186)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 17th, 2001 at 04:10:06 PM PST

Well actually that comment about any other browser except IE is not true. IE can also be used as a hackers browser, if access to drives is limited IE can be used to browse for files where not permitted. and before the PHF atacks were fixed IE could also be used to alter websites that use CGI.

Illegal Web Browser!?! (1.00 / 1) (#20)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 05:21:18 AM PST

You are obviously using an outdated, obsolete, and illegal web browser to view adequacy. You should be aware that this is not only illegal, it violates the specific conditions laid out in adequacy's TOS. Hacking is not cool, nor is it likely to gain you any respect here. It doesn't take brains to be a script kiddie, and you aren't impressing anyone. Please stop hacking into adequacy, before you start a DoS.

You lost me there, pal. What is it that I'm trying to conceal by this logging out thing? That I think hacking is not "cool"? Why would I want hide my identity to say that? Everyone but a few freaks knows that hacking isn't cool. You make no sense here.

Nor does it make sense to intimate that people who spend their time keeping track of which "web browser" is compliant with this or that standard (this week), or who copied which "browser" technology from whom (this week), are in the Computer Science field. Are you thinking perhaps of System Adminstration, I belive they call it? Or Network, uh, 'Engineering'? I think the young women and men who toil in those menial (but perfectly honorable) trades are usually well versed in such tides of fashion and fortune.

And how does this connect with this accusation of posing as a "questionable" Computer Scientist? The only pose I ever struck was one in the mode of exactly what I am: a quite legitimate Computer Scientist. Nothing "questionable" there, rest assured.

So are you calling me a liar? Or just casting aspersions? If you think I have posted anything false, either by design or accident, then would you be so kind as to point out clearly and directly just what this "falsehood" is? If I have made a single false statement, I will be the first to make apologies and retract and correct it. Simply point it out, if you can.

How about your discussions on the legality of viewing HTML source code? Any Computer Scientist knows the HTML is a open standard.

It is perfectly legal to copy and paste uncopyrighted information. Such as if you are teaching yourself to make your own homepage, so as to share information/photos with family and friends.

Say you come across a page with frames. It is perfectly legal for you to copy to source code to put frames on your page. Copying the source code will not place copyrighted pictures for example on your webserver. It will solely provide a link to where they actually reside.

Not to mention that in your artcile which calls for a ban on programming where in which you claim legitimate tool and applications (ie command prompt) as nothing more than hacker tools is an utter insult to computer scientists.

I could continue to go on and on pointing out idiocy that would question you "I AM A COMPUTER SCIENTIST", but I'm not going to waste my time pouring through your posts.

The truth is, is that you have offered absolutely NOTHING to prove you are a computer scientist beyond "I am, I am, WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, why won't you believe me WHAAAAAAAA!" That and stupidity and misinformation.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

I know it is not illegal to view source-code. I am well aware of that fact. If it were illegal, then why on Earth would I write this article? In it I argue that we should make it (along with several other things) illegal. If I believed it already was illegal, I wouldn't call for a new law against it?

So I have yet to be informed of posting any false staements. You have not pointed out any here. You don't want to agree with me, so you are trying to harm my reputation and use an ad homeneim attack to discredit me, and I think your motive for these disreputable tactics is becoming obvious to everyone. You are finding out, to your dismay, that I have in fact not made a single untrue statement, and that my logic is completely sound. Thus you should be required by honor to concede that I am in the right. Yet you lack the moral virtue demanded by that requirement, and so instead cast about for other means of fooling the niave into mistrusting me. For shame!

You are, surprisingly, correct in saying I have not proven that I am a Computer Scientist. Those in the field whose points of view matter are already aware of who I am and what my credentials are. Those outside the field have no need to know such things. How would they even recognize my credentials if they saw them? They would not be able to tell my credentials from, from, I don't know... a nude photograph of Natalie Portman, let us say. So why burden them with information they are not capable of digesting?

I have, however, never asked the question "Why won't you believe me?" I know why. It is because you don't belong at Adequacy. Haven't I been saying that all along?

We all know that current Micro-Soft products include many "hacking" tools, such as Notepad, the command prompt, telnet, or the "View Source" feature. So what?

Here you claim that view source is a hacking tool. Given that HTML is an open source and is open source is it perfectly legal to VIEW SOURCE. The American government literally cannot turn around and say "sorry it can't be open source anymore" and thus cannot do anything about VIEW SOURCE. Also the command prompt in itself is not a hacker tool. There are many LEGAL and LEGITIMATE things that require the command prompt (as someone said fixing Windows or partitioning a drive before installing an OS like Windows on a computer you built yourself or reinstalling Windows). I suppose you think everyone should just reinstall Windows everytime something get messed up.

This is an example of the hypocricsy of hackers. They are happy to demand that other people be bound by license agreements like the GPL, but they think they have a special privilige to violate licenses they don't find to be advantageous to themselves.

When I buy a DVD I am not presented with a license agreement that states that I must use a specific program to view the movie. It simply states that I cannot copy it or rebroadcast it, such as televising it. Not to mention that DeCSS was ruled by the US Supreme Court as perfectly legal. Do not confuse backwards engineering with blatantly stealing source code. I can backwards engineer CocaCola (perfectly legal) I just cannot call it CocaCola.

BSD was not made by hobbyists.

Yes actually it was. So were a lot of projects. Unix, CP/M. Hell Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple computers) built his first computer as a HOBBY. Universities like Univ of California at Berkeley worked on it and developed TCP/IP. These were hobbies that grew into something more. Hobbyists Bill Gates and Paul Allen took their skills and wrote BASIC. By the way niether of them finished college. Bill Gates has an honorary degree. So I guess Bill Gates can't be trusted the hmmm?

If you are working at a university or other major research institution, or at a suitably cleared company, you are a memeber of the professional software engineerig community. You are not a real "hacker".

I point once again to Bill Gates and Paul Allen

These bungling "hackers" contributed nothing of value to FreeBSD, Apache or anything else. Their greatest triumph was Code Red II. Thanks you guys. Good work.

I've already covered this

This whole ad homeniem attack with regard to the origin of Apache is yet another distraction from the issue. You claim that nothing I say is true because you think you've found a mistake in some historical fact. This is like saying that no one should believe anything I say because you discovered that I misspelled a word. Big deal.

How is it that people find so much misinformation and twisting of historical facts in your articles. My suggestion is to do some friggin research! And so what if there was some prototype Apache code out there before it was put into actual productive use at Amazon.com? Where did it originate then? In the basement of a self-taught "hacker" with a ratty beard? Sorry, no. It began at the NCSA.
I suggest you take a visit to apache.org for the correct information. Not to mention that Apache has been in use and had been popular long before Amazon.com got ahold of it. What's this about the NCSA? Apache was started by ASF (Apache Software Foundation). NCSA uses Apache. They didn't produce it.
So. Mozilla? Sorry. NCSA almuni all the way. Smelly "hackers"? Where? Who? Another case of "hackers" stealing credit for things done by professionals.

Marc Anderson and the other members of the Mosaic team (Mozilla) LEFT NCSA to form Mosaic Communications Corp. alonjg with SGI founder Jim Clark. The company was later renamed Netscape Communications. Hmmm, gee NCSA alumni creating a hacker browser? Say it ain't so.

Many of these same people consider themselves hackers. Software developer and hacker go hand and hand. Why it is that you believe the hackers are just guys with no education sitting in the parents' basement. Who are the guys working at say Microsoft working on the Windows kernel? They're kernel hackers you dumbass!

It all comes down to free speech. One, code is not speech. Speech is done in human language, not in instructions to machines. The courts have made this clear. And two, even if it were speech, is it harmful speech? Why yes, it is.

The US Sumpreme Court seems to think otherwise. See the paragraph where I talk about DeCSS.

I fail to understand how "hackers" can so easily dismiss the billions of dollars lost to things like the Code Red Worm. If it was you getting laid off because your company's profits had sunk too low in this virus and worm filled environment, perhaps you would care. Maybe it is because "hackers" don't have real jobs in the tech sector anyway, so they never feel it.

Many open source programmers (or HACKER as you call them) work at reputable companies and "hack" in their spre time, stupid. You know what really funny is that you went on in some other post about updating Windows (the target of Code Red and it's cousins). Guess who got hit? You think Microsoft would have been better prepared. And they can dismiss it. Why, because the have been warning them for friggin years about security holes. did they listen? No. You know how many emails MS gets about security holes that they do nothing about?

Hell people still can't over the whole fiasco with MS allowing full support for Raw Socket in XP Home Edition. MS says don't worry because using the right equipment and techniques will protect you. Translation: Using eqipment that will cost you thousands and expert networking knowledge will help protect you. The issue is with HOME EDITION. These are benefits home users don't have.

We know for a fact that every usable Open Source application you can name was worked on by credible, professional programmers. We know this because they had university degrees and worked in established research institutions. That a small portion of them want to be labeled "hackers" are like Harvard freshmen in phat baggy pants who want to be called "G". They are just play-acting because it embarrases them to be part of the system.

Duh but there are some that have contributed a lot. Hell there are sixteen year olds that know more about programming that a lot of people with degrees. Many companies including Microsoft are known for not only hiring kids directly out of college but even directly out of high school. And you are still stereotyping hackers.

But you suppose that some amateurs made a contribution too. You're just sure of it, yet where is the evidence?

Well, in Linux there is also a file called credits

Yet every time we can look a the provenance of a useful piece of code, we discover that it did come from a real programmer. All the hard data we have says real software engineers are the ones who make Open Source work.

See above

Who is capable of believeing such flimsy reasoning? Only "hackers". Only a "hacker" would start making up fairy tales about professionals writing viruses.

Obviously you have selective memory or you don't get out much. How many articles have I come across about professionals and University scholars writing viruses to improve AntiVirus software which then escaped. Most viruses aren't viruses. They are bug that exist within the program. Many of them closed source. Not all hackers write viruses or break into networks. Stop steroetyping.

While Micro-Soft should be lauded for steadily deprecating these features and including fewer and fewer in each new iteration of their products, my proposal does not depend on Micro-Soft for deciding what is the right thing.

Funny, thje same once that have been there from the beginning (even before MS OSes had networking capabilities) are still there.

Obviously, future versions of these products would have all of the "hacking" capability completely expunged. Any statment about what Micro-Soft products are capable of now proves nothing about what is legal use and what is "hacking", nor does it tell us what should be allowed in the future.

Seems more like MS is adding more. See the paragraph about full support for RAW Sockets.

Typical'hacker' Anti-Americanism.

This is in reference to someone simply stating that if America made it illegal they wouldn't care because they don't live in America. It has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism. If I don't live in America than I don't have to obey the same laws that American citizens do. I have to follow the laws of my country.

If you are a certified, authorized professional, doing legitimate work, I never suggested that you be denied access to the tools you need. You are attacking a straw-man.

This was in response to a post about a server not booting. Well what about the everyday Joe? What happens when a legitimate program because of a small bug has utterly screwed up Windows? Backup can only do so much. Not to mention that your proposal creates stupid asses that wouldn't know how to do anything beyond point and click. Not to mention that stupid people won't backup as often as necessary. What do you do. Reinstall Windows and lose your stuff. Maybe you call tech support? But tech support walks you through fixing the problem. But they can't because the tools they need aren't in Windows? I know make a house call EVERY-FRIGGIN-TIME. Your entire response to that post was comical.

Lunix is a OS by "hackers" for "hackers.

Linux is a kernel

Linux Torvalds was obviously qualified to go to a university, and did his famous work at a university.

No he did his famous work from home. Sorry to tell you but he even states that when talking about how he started the 'hobby'.

Does it ever bug you that you are getting your belief system from data collected in places that don't exist anywhere but in some author's imagination? Doesn't that sort of chip away at the old foundation? At all?

I think this particular response was given because someone killed your stereotypical definition of a hacker. I found the same definition in numerous places and using google. You know google, the place you say anyone can find the answer to a question because you lack the knowledge to answer it yourself.

TechEnclopedia (www.techweb.com/enclopedia):

Hacker

A person who writes programs in assembly language or in system-level languages, such as C. Although it may refer to any programmer, it implies very tedious "hacking away" at the bits and bytes.

Since it takes an experienced hacker to gain unauthorized entrance into a secure computer to extract information and/or perform some prank or mischief at the site, the term has become synonymous with "cracker," a person that performs an illegal act. This use of the term is not appreciated by the overwhelming majority of hackers who are honest professionals. See hack, samurai and cracker.

Webopedia (www.webopedia.com):

Hacker

A slang term for a computer enthusiast, i.e., a person who enjoys learning programming languages and computer systems and can often be considered an expert on the subject(s). Among professional programmers, depending on how it used, the term can be either complimentary or derogatory, although it is developing an increasingly derogatory connotation. The pejorative sense of hacker is becoming more prominent largely because the popular press has coopted the term to refer to individuals who gain unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of stealing and corrupting data. Hackers, themselves, maintain that the proper term for such individuals is cracker.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

something else (none / 0) (#104)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 09:42:17 AM PST

****For example, if PGP is so useless, then let's outlaw it. Obviously, if as you claim, it is of no use to terrorists, because it is so easily intercepted, then no one will miss it. Or else perhaps it is useful to terrorists, in which case it is harmful. Ban it either way." ****

Yes, let's ban Pretty Good Protection. Terrorist could use this for email. Although it's not exactly that secure so it could be intercepted.

****a popular site to be sure, but one that unfortunately relies on Open Source software for critical areas such as their Operating System and their Web Log Engine itself.*****

Not only does adequacy.org use open source software but it runs on a Unix variant (FreeBSD). Maybe now people will stop all this "we only run windows 2000" crap.

If you think you are helping your "hacker" co-conspirators by this kind of character assassination, you are truly so out of touch with the most mundane of social reality that taking away your rights will be easier than getting Natalie Portman to sign up for breast implants. Your vicious ranting and below-the-belt insults only alarm people, and your threats to "hack" anyone who opposes you are a source of genuine fear. These threats are taken completly seriously, you know.

I can bag together several of what you must think amounts to damning arguments and dismiss them at a stroke. You say that Notepad is not a "hacking" tool, but then say that numerous respectable programmers are in fact "hackers", according to your clique's private jargon. If so, then Notepad is a tool that may be used for programming by these "hackers". By that alone, it must be a "hacking" tool. By any definition, if it allows the means to "hack", it is a tool for "hacking", and thus a "hacker's" tool.

And can we ban them? Hell yes, we can ban any damn thing we want. We banned Marijuana, you know. It used to be everywhere. Cocaine too. And Freon. All kinds of things can be banned. Ultimately, a house-to-house search will be required, but many countries have done such things before with great success. Why not the greatest nation on Earth? And we can make it quite cost effective by gathering up all the guns in everyone's homes at the same time.

The important thing to remember is that the only ones who might complain spend their time musing on whether not wearing any deodorant really does have anything to do with never getting laid. The congressional record is clear: g**ks have zero political influence, and so do not count. So, YES, we can do it! And we shall.

The rest of your blather is just a buch of names. You are supposed to be proving that amateurs can develop useful software! And you do so by informing us of the existence of a credits file in Lunix. Inside this file we find a list of names. And...? This proves what?

If you knew anything about how Open-Source projects really go, you would know that the kiddies on that list spend their times introducing bugs, and the pros went around fixing them, and in spite of it all, got some of these vaunted Open-Source projects to work, no thanks to the "hackers". You wish to believe that hobbyists actually helped in a useful way, but you can't prove it, can you? Silly corporate myths about Apple's Steve Wojahowiz and Micro-Soft's Bill Gates... Sigh.

Micro-Soft. They are your father totem, aren't they? They legitimize your world and give you the standard for what is right and normal, yet you chafe at the authority they therby have over you, and so attack them with a kind of neurotic irrationality that flat-out scares people. God.

Finally, if you are going to try to use a dictionary to win arguments, at least use a real dictionary. Wikipedia is a silly toy "hacker" project, based on the same utopian dreams that the failed Mo-Zilla and Lunix schemes were based on.

Steve Wozniak was the co-founder along with Steve Jobs you dumb cock sucker. Where did Wozniak and Jobs sell their first computer (Aple I)? Same place Steve Wozniak got his first kit. The Homebrew Computer Club. I seriously suggest you visit Steve Wozniak's homepage (www.woz.org). Here's more information about Steve Wozniak (aka WOZ) >>>http://www.apple.com/usergroups/spotlight/breakfast/

Bill Gates DID drop out of college. Both he and Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft).

Here stupid shit:

In his junior year, Gates left Harvard to devote his energies to Microsoft, a company he had begun in 1975 with his childhood friend Paul Allen.

Wanna read more?

http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.asp

Hell they made a movie about this shit you DUMB ASS STUPID MOTHER FUCKING MORON. Although not entirely accurate you should rent it. It's called "Pirates of Silcon Valley".

Finally, if you are going to try to use a dictionary to win arguments, at least use a real dictionary. Wikipedia is a silly toy "hacker" project, based on the same utopian dreams that the failed Mo-Zilla and Lunix schemes were based on.

You know who Ziff-Davis is right? Big time publisher of countless computer magazine like PCMagazine, EGM, OPM, ExtremeTech, eWeek, ZiffDavis Smart Business. Not to mention ZDNet, C|Net, download.com, and countless other projects including WEBOPEDIA. Give me ANY online dictionary or encyclopedia I'll give you the same goddamn definitions.

The only reason I present Microsoft is because YOU jackoffs think Microsoft is some how this holier than thou art. It seems you believe it to be truth if it comes from MS. Other than that it's a GEEK MYTH. Everytime someone presents you with a FACT that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you run off screaming "that's just a geek myth". Get you fucking head out of your ass!

...is all the more evidence of the vindictive and violent nature of Lunixers. I blame your degenerate state on television, Hollywood, the internet, and drugs. Which is not to diminish the culpability of Open Source ringleaders such as ESR who encourage this kind of verbal terrorism and personal assault.

Since we seem to agree as to your lack of moral virtue, and of course basic self control, I won't bother debating the "arguments" you present in between your barrages of filth and contumley.

Have you thought about how well your personality will go over during the congressional hearings for the Ban Programming Bill? You will be escorted from the premises before you finish your second sentence.

I have never conversed with any as stupid as you. It's very rare that I lose my temper. The thing that really gets me is that you can prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt and you still won't believe it. I say Steve Wozniak and you say he's a "geek myth". Same goes for Gates dropping outta school. Then you ramble on about Microsoft as a farther figure. Nope. The reason people mention MS so much is that you don't believe anything unless it comes straight from Bill Gate's asshole.

Have you thought about how well your personality will go over during the congressional hearings for the Ban Programming Bill? You will be escorted from the premises before you finish your second sentence.

When is that? Two weeks from never? Show me a Senator or Repreentative that is pushing the Ban Programming Bill and a link to their website or a story about it.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

You have divided all reallity into pro-Micro-Soft and anti-Micro-Soft, and in the brutal, animal mind of a Lunixer, those camps are mutually exclusive. Us an Them, like the thuggish, street-gang that "hackers" are. Based on that reasoning, anyone who disagrees with you about anything must belong in the pro-Micro-Soft camp. And this is how you are able to dream up this startling conclusion: "you don't believe anything unless it comes straight from Bill Gate's asshole." Nothing I ever said indicates that I worship Micro-Soft. You "hackers" are the one's who think that just because Micro-Soft includes, say, "View Source" in their "Web Browser", then "View Source" must therefore be a legitimate feature.

If you were one of us who belong at Adequacy.org then you would be someone who could think for himself, and independently of your father/enemy Micro-Soft. You would not be caught in the contradiction of railing against Micro-Soft while using them as your yardstick of normality and correctness.

Here is the true source of your unrestrained anger. You are angry with yourself because you both desire the approval of Micro-Soft, as your substitue father figure, your authority (there is a sexual desire here as well), and yet you feel frustrated because you chafe at that submission. Your want to break free and be independent. You wish, in short to be a man, but you simultaneously refuse to let go of your boyhood. It hurts and you lash out because of it, like an animal caught in a trap, imprisoned in a world of pain and hating everything in existence.

Hating yourself most of all. Isn't it time to let go of the anger? Let go of the hate? But to do it, you must own your true feelings and admit what is behind them.

Based on that reasoning, anyone who disagrees with you about anything must belong in the pro-Micro-Soft camp.

I don't have a problem with people that disagree with. I don't have a problem with intelligent Windows users. I don't have problem with people who say they like Microsoft. I could care less if the Linux turns out to be a giant fad and Bill Gates is crowned King od the World. I have a problem with people who think Microsoft and Windows users are somehow above all others.

Most of all I have problem with people like yourself that make wild claims that they can't back up. Like yours in claiming you are Computer Scientist. Yet when someone asks you a question on the subject of Computer Science you fail to answer it or you start childish attacks on a person's character. Even going as far as to do some crack-pot psych-analysis on the person.

My other gripe is again towards your claim that you are a Computer Scientist yet when subjects come up about well known figures in the history of computers comes up, you make wild accusations that the poster is making stuff or that it is just a "geek myth" even with mountains of evidence staring you in the face.

You utter lack of knowledge about the tools of a professional programmer and your lack of computing knowledge makes me question YOUR character. I believe you avoid any attempt to answer the real questions posed to you because it would expose you as a fraud.

Hating yourself most of all. Isn't it time to let go of the anger? Let go of the hate? But to do it, you must own your true feelings and admit what is behind them.
Most of all, you have to want to change. Do you?

No Mr. Self Proclaimed Computer Scientist Freudian wannabe, I don't. I am perfectly happy with my life. I have a lovely wife, 3 beautiful children, the nice house and car, a great job and I accomplished many of my life's goals before I was 35. I have the life that I want and I have no desire to change myself. If for some reason that's not good enough for you, so what?

In fact, you know what? When I die I wanna be buried upside-down so you can kiss my ass.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Black lies (5.00 / 1) (#31)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 02:37:39 PM PST

IE6 is built using modern "XP" technology. It is well-known that the latest unreleased and broken version of netscape is based on outdated technology developed as much as four years ago. I cannot understand why people would persist in using a web browser that simply doesn't work. The only conceivable reason is to exploit security holes in the poorly written browser in order to steal intellectual property.

This "XP Technology" does not prevent Internet Explorer from doing ANYTHING that cannot be done in Netscape Navigator. I fail to see why some people believe that somehow IE is SO different from Navigator.

Both are based on the same standards. It the reason that all web browsers can access the same pages and do the same things.

Both use port 80 for HTTP, port 21 for FTP, port 25 for SMTP and so on and so on.

The truth is, is that the are more security holes in IE and Outlook Express than any other browser companion applications. They still exist in the wonderful XP technology. Outlook Express can still automatically launch executable or ActiveX exploits in IE.

And before any remarks on IE being an industry standard it's NOT. No other company can sell IE. Sure you can bundle an upgrade (if you have a license to do from MS). I seriously suggest you look to webopedia.com for a definition on STANDARDS.

Believing that simply because EVERY other broswer dislpays more than simply "The page cannot be displayed" make it some sort of hacker thing makes you a joke.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

XP technology (none / 0) (#52)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 08:50:55 AM PST

IE6 is built using modern "XP" technology.

While XP technology may be whoopee-doo but I think you are confusing it with .NET technology. And for you information WindowsXP does not fully take advantage of ".NET technology". It won't come into major play until Ms releases Server.NET as well as it's next 2 OSes. .NET will be integrated slowly starting with WindowsXP, then BlackComb [codename] and Longhorn [codename].

You are woefully misinformed (none / 0) (#67)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 02:24:49 PM PST

Web browsers do not use port 25 for anything. They do not use smtp. You would have to be so wet behind the ears to say that, that I'm not even going to bother continuing with this post. Specifically, I'm not going to point out that IE is the standard, since everyone who uses the web for serious work uses IE. I'm not going to point out that netscape's browsers are now made entirely by open source hackers, and hence must be illegal and probably full of top secret backdoor code, which is why you hackers are always trying to get us to use it. Finally, I'm not even going to try to ask you to mend your hacking ways. I'm certain that my request would fall on deaf ears.

no smtp? (none / 0) (#94)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 06:37:58 AM PST

***Web browsers do not use port 25 for anything. They do not use smtp.***

You mean they don't make a connection to the smtp server to send outgoing mail?

***I'm not going to point out that IE is the standard, since everyone who uses the web for serious work uses IE.***

Haha. Now that's just funny. It's just more popular. It comes bundled with Windows and more people use Windows. It's a proprietart application made and sold by a single company. Since it cannot be manufactured or sold by another company it is not a standard. I mean that claiming IBMs 32bit expansion bus, MCA, was a industry standard because more people owned IBM computers. Was it? No. I MS licensing didn't prevent things like dual booting and competing web browser IE wouldn't be so popular given that Navigator has been around longer.

Use the web for serious "work"? What web surfing? This shows that you obviously don't know the difference between the web and the Internet. To put into layman's terms "the web exists within the Internet".

***I'm not going to point out that netscape's browsers are now made entirely by open source hackers, and hence must be illegal and probably full of top secret backdoor code, which is why you hackers are always trying to get us to use it.***

Now that's just funny. If it's open source how would the backdoors be "top secret". I'm so that the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of companies (I post the list if you want) never bothered to examine the source code.

Here I am, using Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. I click on the broken link posted in the article. It returns the exact same information as the user with Netscape.

Not Found

The requested URL ../../images/mortimer/www2001/index.html was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80

The reason why you see that output is because that is what the server sends when it cannot find the requested data. Yes, it's the server's fault. Yes, "the Adequacy" relies on open source software.

You may also want to direct your attention to the link on the bottom of most every page on adequacy.org. It prominently displays that this site is "powered by Scoop". One would think that an Adequacy.org editor would know this, but Scoop is also open source software.

And if you look at the requirements for Scoop, you'll see that it is designed to run on *nix variants. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Adequacy.org runs on an open source operating system, such as FreeBSD or Linux.

And if you all were paying attention, none of this information was obtianed via "hacking". All it took was the ability to read and process information sitting right in front of me. I really don't understand how an Adequacy.org editor can deride another website for relying on the same software that Adequacy.org relies upon.

Anybody with at least half a brain would agree with that. Unfortunately, there are just some people that no matter how hard you try just simply can't get things through their heads. Even if you drew them a picture, wrapped it around a brick and BEAT THEM IN THE FUCKING HEAD WITH IT!

Scoop is a weblog script written in Perl with a MySQL backend. It is different then other weblogs, in that it allows the users to decide what stories get posted.

* Development Status: 4 - Beta

* Environment: Web Environment

* Intended Audience: Developers, System Administrators

* License: GNU General Public License (GPL)

* Operating System: BSD, Linux, SunOS/Solaris

* Programming Language: Perl

* Topic: Message Boards

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Ouch (5.00 / 2) (#65)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 01:18:13 PM PST

Unfortunately, there are just some people that no matter how hard you try just simply can't get things through their heads. Even if you drew them a picture, wrapped it around a brick and BEAT THEM IN THE FUCKING HEAD WITH IT!

Maybe now all this Open Source sucks, we don't use open source blah blah blah..crap will stop. Not to mention this misconception that open source = Linux and only Linux. The other one I like is that ALL open source software are just "hacker tools".

Watch I am using SCOOP to hack your site! :)

Hey elenchos, you wanna ban Scoop now too?

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Hacker tools (none / 0) (#80)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 07:09:28 PM PST

I'm not sure what you mean by scoop, but it is clear from your post that you don't know what you are talking about. By the admission of their leaders, namely ESR, RMS, Rob Malda and Linux Travaldéz, all hackers use open source for their hacking tools. ESR has been quite vocal on the subject. All open source tools are, by their own vehement admission, hacking tools. Why the US government permits the continuing production of these tools is beyond me. The internet subculture that they have spawned threatens the responsible use of the internet for everyone.

ALL HACKERS USE OPEN SOURCE!?! (none / 0) (#95)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 06:46:00 AM PST

That is just utter BULL SHIT! Any programming language can be used to create "hacker tools"

There are many "hacker tools" (given your idiocy which defines this) that exist within in closed sourced OSes like Windows and BeOS. There are also FreeWare and ShareWare (closed source) tools.

The simple fact that you can't even spell Linus Tovald's name correctly shows that you have never read or heard such a thing.

Linus Torvalds = spelling taken from his original email announcing Linux, which was written in friggin ENGLISH.

Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#103)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 09:18:23 AM PST

but you have to admit, Linux Travaldéz is the best twist on his name ever. By a damn sight.

The knowlege contained in "source code" and the means of writing and compiling or interpreting it are too dangerous to be left in the hands of drug-addled and disloyal teenage "hackers" and their ilk.

The campaign to legislate these potentially deadly and destructive technologies out of the hands of the general public is gaining steam daily. Normal, decent Americans are fed up with the constant harrassment of the public Network by these "script kiddies" and "hackers", and we intend to put a stop to it.

Given that they spend most of their time writing spelling flames and arguing about the correct pronunciation of "Lunix" makes me confident that the "open source" community won't put up much of a fight.

And maybe when you stop confusing the terms hacker and cracker much like the popular media does you might actually get somewhere.

I don't see any movements taking place other than that here to remove tools from the hands of any "professional hackers".

Anyone no matter where they work or or how they obtained their knowledge has the potential to use the programming/hacking skills to crack.

Once someone gets ahold of the necessary tools their is little you can do to stop them. Someone who has gotten the approval to use the tools can turn around and do bad things. It's not like crackers leave their business cards lying around.

You may believe that you are offering a solution, but your solution has too many loopholes and causes more harm then good.

You think people should not obtain the tools until the get to a University or pass some morality test. Yeah, like people will just get to college and say "gee I wanna be a programmer". No they take an interest early. Tahat's why you see more programs available in high schools. Hell there is even talk about starting as early as Junior High. I'm sorry but I don't see momentumn for your movement anywhere beyond the site.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Here on adequacy, we are above spewing out such language. Apparently you are not. Perhaps this should tell us something about you? I'm guessing such language is indicative of the "lunix hax0r" culture. We tend to look down on such mean miscreants here.

Please, please, refrain from posting the most foul of foul words at adequacy.

"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."-- James Gosling

What? I beg your pardon? (none / 0) (#205)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 11:24:08 AM PST

You are obviously using an outdated, obsolete, and illegal web browser to view adequacy.

I can understand your terms of outdated and obsolete, sir. Your use of illegal, however, surprises me. How can a web browser be illegal?

According to tkachev's error message, all he did was receive data (in this case, an error message) from your website server. That is all.

What would you define as an 'illegal' browser, then, sir? I would be most ineterested to hear your answer.

Admittedly, yes, knowing what kind of server you use for a website can potentially lead to the break-in of a server.

Consider, however -- almost any browser on the planet can receive the information that my esteemed russian comrade has received. Why? Well, for one thing, the initial data that generated that report was not created by the client software -- it was made by the server.

You should be aware that this is not only illegal, it violates the specific conditions laid out in adequacy's TOS.

This is interesting. May we see a copy of the Terms of Service?

Hacking is not cool, nor is it likely to gain you any respect here. It doesn't take brains to be a script kiddie, and you aren't impressing anyone. Please stop hacking into adequacy, before you start a DoS.

I am surprised by this information. You imply that you need to know what software the server is running to initiate a DoS attack. You do not need to know what kind of server is on the other side to initiate what you call a Denial-of-Service attack, or DoS. It certainly may help, this is true, but it is not required.

You need not even 'break in' to a server to initiate an attack.

Imagine a shopkeeper, and assume that he is your web server. His customers are what we call his clients. If too many customers come a-calling, the shopkeeper will be overwhelmed. That is the nature of a DoS. Note that a customer need not break into the shop to perform a DoS -- all he needs is persistence and ingenuity, and failing that, many friends, willing or not, knowing and not.

I would be interested to see the administrators of this website take some form of legal action against my esteemed russian comrade. Do note, however, that my bet would be on him winning any form of court order you propose. Your legal position, to my knowledge, is exceedingly precarious.

You good sir, have made a most excelent point. It takes an intellect of a rare disposition to truly let the plebians have it in such a splendid manner. Your wit would seem to provide for such exquisite sport, so I shall have at it!

You ignorant, overbareing, stiff, stuck up, crackheaded, sell your wife and kids into slavery for a dollar, jingoistic, scum sucking, small farm animal fucking, pedagoguish, invertabrate, simplistic, take it in the ear for a beer, swine-esque, undereducated, incomprehensiable, pederast! How dare you tell anyone that they are wothless until they gone and damn well proven their need to wiped from any record of humanity! Sure some of the people flowing over to here are festering boils in the anus of humanity. But let them prove that for themselves so that the rest of us can laugh unmercifully at them!

I do say, that was invigorating! You are a most guileful and worthwhile opponent! I do so hope we will have the chance to square off again!

incomprehensiable (5.00 / 2) (#25)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Nov 25th, 2001 at 11:39:06 AM PST

When I correct people's grammar or spelling, they have a tendency to become vexed with me. For that reason, I usually do not. In your case, however, your language use is in such a ridiculous contrast to your ability to spell that it is not a simple mistake, but a message to everyone reading your message that you are using language which you are not accustomed to in an attempt to seem more intelligent than you are. I suggest that in the future you stick to AOL chatrooms, Slashdot, or any of the dozens of internet forums where words like 'disposition' will make the readers assume you to be their intellectual superior.

I suppose that since trolling is not done here, and you I take it are one of the adequate insiders, then I must understand this elitist advice to the inadequate as simply good cyber forum hygiene akin to posting "no spitting" signs in public transport conveyances.

It's an interesting philosophy and I'm glad I'm taking the time to take in what you offer without screaming elitist foul kick penalty. I have wondered myself about how to maintain the quality of online discussion without throttling the inflow of fresh innovative thought.

I suppose I'm here to give as good an accounting as I can of the much-maligned cosmopolitanist views of my people.

I thought Thomas Kinkaid was the site's officially endorsed artist. Much like Adequacy itself, you look at it and wonder, is this serious or is he just having fun with (and profiting from) those who accept it at face value?

And by the way, isn't this article a little bit too meta for this site?

Do you have some sort of mathematical proof that there does not exist a non-countable infinite set of people capable of fully appreciating Adequacy? Who's to say that the readers of Adequacy do not number in the aleph-sub-1s? Even those with access to the logs can not be sure, because modern logging software, unfotunately, is ill equipped to handle numbers of hits in excess of simple countable infinity. Until we have better logging software, all such statements are appropriately prefaced with 'probably'

Only the most dangerous and hardened of criminals attempts to blame the law when he is the one who broke it.

I can bet more people access MSN and Yahoo! than they do adequacy.org and they can sure as hell keep track.

They can determine individual IP addresses and how long each person spent at the site. They are currently locked in a battle because Microsoft claims MSN is more popular.

However, Microsoft's numbers are questionable since they don't reach their total based on individual IP addresses or time spent at the site. And since IE points to MSN (by default) when loaded and because XP likes to point you to MSN all the time their numbers really don't mean shit.

Now I suppose you reach your assumption based on the fact that COUNTERS can determine how many individual people access a site. In fact you can hit refresh and the number jumps. A lot of people post Anonymously and usually posts more than once per session.

The only way to get an accurate can't would be to check the log for individual IP addresses and see how many people spent more than 1 minute at this site. Then factor in a margin of error due to dynamic IP addresses.

I can bet that if you did that you would find that this site is NOT as popular as the editors like to think it is.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

You were making light of elenchos' redundancy. Well, then, I agree. Certainly, if this site has a finite number of users, then it has a countable number of users. I still maintain that this site may have an uncountable number of users, but I shan't ask you to prove me wrong.

I shall now hit post and await NAWL to arrive and miss the point completely.

Only the most dangerous and hardened of criminals attempts to blame the law when he is the one who broke it.

The small Adequacy.org in-crowd is one of the most educated, insightful and talented cliques to be found anywhere on the Internet. The opinions of a group like this carry enormous weight amongst the intelligentsia, the public intellectuals whose ideas filter down to the popular opinion-makers whose words in turn influence the reading public and the digerati, and thence to the masses at large. Ideas flow in one direction here: downwards, from the betters to their inferiors.

So basically ideas flow from Jon Katz, to Adequacy and thence out to the world. Huzzahs all around. Perhaps we would be fortunate if the Great Katz were to post one of his enlightened koans on Adequacy for us to ponder, and leave out the middlemen?

>>So basically ideas flow from Jon Katz, to Adequacy and thence out to the world.

What does Jon Katz contribute to
adequacy.org? He writes for
wired magazine (at least he used to, I haven't read that magazine in a while).

I'm not saying that Jon Katz isn't intelegent as you say because he clearly is. But does Jon Katz even have a login here? I think I heard that Jon Katz has a contract that doesn't allow him to write articles for the
world's most controversial web site.

I guess I'm trying to understand your post but the more I read it, the less sense it makes. Did you forget to hit preview?

I can only assume you mean that the "great one" is Jon Katz as you said in your first post.

Jon Katz is a talented writer but what do you mean to say when you claim that he isn't understood? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And besides, even though Jon Katz may not be understood by the unwashed masses his ideas are certainly not too avant-garde for this website.

I can't believe the likes of you are allowed to post on this site. Anybody who actually calls JonKatz a talented writer belongs on that other site and should let us be.Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

not sure if you'll read this but what the hell...actually I would appreciate it if any body who considers themself an artist would reply.

I've always wondered about the expectations artists have of people who view their work. Since that probably doesn't make sense, I'll try to explain by example. Let's say I go to an art museum, and see a painting I enjoy looking at, purely because I find it aesthetically pleasing. After maybe 15 or 30 minutes of observation, I often try to form some sort of opinion as to what the artwork "means" to me, or what I think it "says" about the world, etc. This is done with no formal background or understanding of art whatsoever. Then I often end up wondering what it is the artist intended to represent, what they intended the viewer to experience, and whether the artist is making any statements (directly or indirectly).

Typically I leave feeling happy that I had the opportunity to see some interesting art, and sometimes I leave contemplating something a painting made me think of, but I generally believe that I don't know what the artist "intended" with the art.

So this is both for you and what you think the majority of artists intend for the viewing audience to get out of viewing art. Are you making a statement that only a select few are generally expected to understand? Are you, in the end, trying to create something that is compelling to look at? Would you rather inspire somebody to understand exactly what you were thinking when you began (or finished) the artwork, or do derive any satisfaction from people assigning their own meanings to art?

I never have anything clearly definable to say in images. If I did, I guess I'd write it out. Almost always I don't know what I'm doing until it's kind of done. I guess it is about saying something very specific, in terms of a sense of place, but meaning is different. I guess I do it for selfish reasons - it makes me feel good to fixate on an image until it starts to resonate somehow. Usually I avoid being blatant. If I see something that's too obviously narative, and not the least bit mysterious I get tired of it. Sometimes something initially seems like a great idea but then when you try to carry it out you realize there isn't more to it. I think viewers often bring more to art than an artist could have fully intended. I guess the images are like saying, here this does something to me, how about you?

For fuck's sake. (none / 0) (#69)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 02:53:32 PM PST

She has created paintings and drawings such as this portrait, and this still life. Or this scene. Quite nice, right? This is the kind
of art that the public loves and pays top dollar for. You can understand it and you can see the skill that went into it. This artist
really knows how to draw, doesn't she?

You forgot to capitalize Art, and you call yourself elitist! You should be ashamed of yourself. I honestly cannot put up with such egalitarian fiends like you. Your amatuerish snobbery is sickening.

...that Adequacy has strict Terms of Service that must be observed at all times. We have noted the IP addresses of violators and contacted their ISPs.--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

Oy! Such hatred! (none / 0) (#74)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 05:33:35 PM PST

I know you won't post this, but someone will still have to read it first, so here goes.

How ironic that this appears right after the thread about how this site is running on the very Open Source software its defenders say they loathe and despise. Hey, here's an idea. If you're so concerned about someone stealing your content or abusing it in some fashion, why don't you take it off the Internet so those nasty people can't get to it? Huh?

How ironic that this appears right after the thread about how this site is running on the very Open Source software its defenders say they loathe and despise.

Nothing short of physically examining our servers can establish such a fact. I take it you don't work for our ISP, right?

Hey, here's an idea. If you're so concerned about someone stealing your content or abusing it in some fashion, why don't you take it off the Internet so those nasty people can't get to it? Huh?

I am sorry, but given that DoS attacks nor death threats, nor hate mail, have managed to stopp us from casting our light as a beacon of hope upon this mean world, you think your wimpy threats will? --em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

Refer to my post above. (none / 0) (#78)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 06:52:20 PM PST

Nothing short of physically examining our servers can establish such a fact. I take it you don't work for our ISP, right?

Not only are you violating the site's TOS, and behaving like an eight year old child, you seem to be proud of yourself for doing this! Nobody thinks you are particularly brilliant, and I for one am growing tired of your antics. Hacking the site (which is what you are doing, no matter how much specious reasoning you use to confuse the issue), is simply not cool. It is an immoral act of near-vandalism, and demonstrates an appalling depth of insensitivity to the rights of others online.

Hello Anonymous Reader! (1.00 / 1) (#86)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 08:58:42 PM PST

And who might you be? You would think a registered user of this site would be the one coming to it's defense.

Regardless, what in my above posts constitutes hacking? I'm dying to know. As far as I can tell, all my posts show is that I'm pretty good at reading and comprehending information that's put in front of me. If that constitutes hacking, your definition of it is skewed.

- chuckx -

Apart from being obnoxious? (none / 0) (#89)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 09:51:47 PM PST

You are using a web browser designed with hacking in mind, to access information specificied as private to the adequacy operators in their TOS. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Who knows what other hacker tricks you have been playing on this site? For all I know, you could be DoSing adequacy right now. Obviously I have to post anonymously, for fear that you would use my information to try and hack me. Unlike adequacy, I do not have the monetary resources or political connections to withstand your intolerant stupidity.

I had no idea that Internet Explorer is a "web browser designed with hacking in mind". Whatever shall I do. Luckily I have Netscape 6 installed on this computer also.

My question for you is... why is it so hard for you to understand that it took no 'hacking' ability whatsoever to come to my previous conclusions. All it took was an adeptness at browsing the web. Even I admit that it's no tremendous feat. The astounding thing is that you are unable to grasp this.

- chuckx -- chuckx -

Well said sir (none / 0) (#92)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 03:45:00 AM PST

Who cares if it's easy? (5.00 / 1) (#93)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 04:33:38 AM PST

I have stated many times that I am not impressed by your hacking skills. I already know that these simple feats of scofflawism are nothing to be applauded. I'm concerned that you don't respect the rights of others. Also, you lie. IE does not display the proprietary 404 page sent to your browser by websites. Instead, it conceals the copyrighted information beneath a standard microsoft error page. Either you have never looked at a web site using IE, or you have illegally altered your browser to eliminate this security feature. A security feature which is lacking in your open source browser, I might add.

Also, you lie. IE does not display the proprietary 404 page sent to your browser by websites. Instead, it conceals the copyrighted information beneath a standard microsoft error page.

It most cases it does, but with this error message it's not. I'm using IE 6.0 right now. I'll verify it with IE 5.5 when I get to work if you'd like. I have not purposely changed any of the browser's security settings.

The response that get's sent by your server is not "proprietary" by any means. Try reading it and comprehending it's meaning. All it's syaing is, "Sorry, I can't find that file, this is the web server speaking." I don't see how you can imply that the message is somehow exclusively owned by the web server. Especially in light of the fact that the web server is open source. Lastly, if you have a problem with it, change it. It's really simple to do.

The obfuscation by IE of generic error messages is not really a HTTP server security feature. As you can see, if the error message isn't what it's expecting, it displays the error message itself. Which is the right thing to do, because there's no reason a web browser should radically alter the content of what I'm trying to view. If the Adequacy.org administrators rely on it as such, your security measures are incredibly frail and laughable.

Micro-Soft is not the center of the universe. When they twiddle with some bits of technical trivia on their "Web Browswer", Adequacy.org does not rush to bend our Terms Of Service into conformation. You are free to worship this one soft-ware company all you want, merely because within the small niche of Intel-based desk-top personal-computers, Micro-Soft has for the moment gained a respectable market-share for many of their products. Why that constitutes a reason to treat them as your "lawgiver" is quite astounding to most normal people, but you do what you will. Just don't act so surprised when others don't follow suit.

What we follow is our TOS. You seem to have read it. Listen: it is a contract. You may choose to follow the terms of the contract, or you may choose not to. You are free in this. But if you choose not to follow the terms of this contract, then you are not allowed to use Adequacy.org. It is that simple.

A contract might ask you to only view the content of a site on Thursdays and on alternate Fridays in which the "Moon" is full, and only whilst wearing a hat, but not a green hat. Sure it is a stupid contract, but a contract is a contract. Don't like it? Then don't agree to it! Tell them to keep their damn site!

Got it? Must we draw pictures? Pictures can be arranged, I'm told. I would hope that a smart guy like you could understand something this basic. It is like this: if you don't like our TOS, then go away!

First of all, I'm not implying that Microsoft is the center of the universe. I just repeatedly have to confirm that I am not using a "hacker browser", I'm just using IE (unless IE is considered a hacker browser too). The reason for the repetition is that I'm repeatedly accused of 'hacking', when I've done nothing of the sort.

The funny part here is that you insist that readers of your article try out a link that you know will not work for them. Then you and the defenders of Adequacy.org scream and moan after the readers follow that link and find out that Adequacy is using Apache. Like I've said before, it's an easy problem for a web administrator to fix. But it is your problem. Relying the users web browsers to obfuscate information sent to them by your web server is very piss poor security practice.

In the end, I don't have a problem with your TOS. I do think it's kind of ridiculous, but the fact is, I haven't broken it. All I did was follow a link provided to me by you. Beyond that, all the other information posted was gathered from other web sites (ie. Scoop's home page, Netcraft, etc.).

Yes, I know it is obvious, given the manifestly false legal statements he makes, but it needs to be said. Anyone who makes the mistake of following in his wicked footsteps will swiftly become aquainted with a real lawyer and will therefore have the opportunity to learn the difference.

Suffice it to say that W.W.W. users are bound by the Terms Of Service of sites they visit on the Inter-Net. For your own sakes, don't go violating the TOS of any Web-Site just because some uninvited squatter at Adequacy.org brashly claimed you could get away with it.

What false legal statements did he make? It is not up to the user to say "Oh they don't want me accessing this site with X browser". So friggin what. You thinking that any legal representative would waste their time with is a joke.

You want people to stop accessing the site with a specific browser? Fine block access to the webserver by specific browsers. Want someone to not be able to view the DEFAULT 404 Error Message because you somehow, in your pathetic little mind, think it's illegal. Then CHANGE IT, AND STOP USING THE DEFAULT, DUMBASS! And what about those who never even bother reading the terms of service?

Hell if you want to I'll send you guys every piece of personal information. Even if you did do a damn thing no judge would take the. And let's say you have a slim chance of seeing me in a courtroom. A couple of industry experts laughing at your dumbasses, hell I'll subpoena Bill Gates if ya want, and the only thing left would be me counter-suing you guys for wasting my fucking time.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

I thought Open Source Software / Free Software belonged to everybody, but here you claim that it does not belong to the people of Adequacy. This is proof that the OSS Movement is merely a way for RMS to spread his communist views to the masses. That's why he wants people to include the "or any later version" on the GPL so he could pull a bait-and-switch and suddenly own all the software licensed under the GPL by the ignorant.

The only reason some browsers display simplified information such as simply "Page Not Found" is because most people (like you) don't understand it anyway.

You display the typical arrogance of a Linux zealot.Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

Yes it doesn't belong solely to you. People on the site believe that the default 404 Error Message is specific to adequacy. As if it shows up on any other site they can claim copyright infringement.

It's not like you can slap a sign on it reading "Property of Adequacy.org, so if you any site displays something even remotely similar we will sick our lawyers on you". However, there are people on this site that think they can.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Let me see if I understand (5.00 / 1) (#157)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 08:44:45 PM PST

You're saying that other sites are using a "404" message that claims to originate from "www.adequacy.org"? I find this highly dubious, not to mention unsubstantiated. Show me a list of other sites that use "404" messages identical to the proprietary adequacy message, and I'll show you a copyright lawsuit that would make the MPAA proud.

You won't find a site with a 404 message that is exactly the same as Adequacy's. The message depends upon what is requested and the way the server is setup. The way you all have your server setup, it sends a default 404 message that is mostly similar to any other default message that you would get from any other Apache server.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that your 'legal staff' is claiming that it is illegal for a person to read information that you are sending to them. Once again, Adequacy is sending the information to our computers. If you really don't want people to see that, change it. It is very, very simple to do. Either that, or you can stick to bitching and moaning when we choose to process the information that you all are putting right in front us.

This basically boils down to you all claiming that it is against the TOS to read information that is put in front of us by you. I don't know about you, but it's obvious to me that it's a ridiculous request and it would hardly hold up in a court of law.

- chuckx -

Now we are making progress (none / 0) (#161)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 11:22:47 PM PST

You've finally conceded that adequacy's "404" messages are unique and proprietary information belonging to adequacy. I was beginning to think we'd never even get this far.
Now, as for your right to read that information, this is fairly clear-cut, and I'm surprised you've had any trouble with it. It is only possible for you to see the proprietary information if you have already made an illegal request of the server, using a "configured" (read "hacked") client. If you are seeing proprietary information belonging to adequacy, you have already broken the law and violated the TOS to get it.
As for your right to read information sent to you, need I remind you that it is illegal for you to read the source code of the microsoft programs that are on your computer, despite the fact that it would be a simple matter of just opening the programs in a text editor such as MS Word? This is no different.

I know your heart is in the right place, and we can all appreciate the selflessness involved in trying to guide this disturbed young person away from his wicked path and save him from prison, but be careful what type of information you post here on Adequacy.edu.

It is bad enough that ordinary folks have powerful programming tools pre-installed on their PC's, for no useful reason I can think of. Perhaps Micro-Soft feels so threatened and cowed by the constant criticism they seem to get no matter what they do that they simply fall all over themselves in their attempts to please the whole world. It's too bad. Giving out text-editors is practically an engraved invitation to 'hack', as they say.

But leaving that aside, few normal users realize the power of such tools. "Hackers", however, are constantly on the prowl for more tidbits of technical lore that they can piece together and use as weapons against their enemies. And the typical "hacker" carries around long list of enemies they want to "get even" with, as they say.

So when word gets out that an Adequacy.org user is giving out secrets regarding the use of such tools as Micro-Soft Word, they will spread the news in minutes and come flocking to the site to gather up the "hacks" as they call them.

Must I fill in all the blanks? Obviously, the last thing Adequacy.org needs is more of them hanging about, swearing, kicking over the furniture and leaving their drug paraphenalia around.

So do carry on, but please show more discretion in how precise you are with the details. Generalizations are sufficient to make your point. And perhaps if these "hackers" really want to know all the gory details, they will "get clean" and apply to a University, and maybe save themselves from a lifetime of regrets.

I do, I do, I do--Bikini Kill

What am I thinking? (5.00 / 2) (#163)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 12:31:41 AM PST

My abject apologies.

As you may have guessed, I spent far too many of my adolescent years engaged in illegal activities such as software pirating and computer hacking. I was even on alt.comp.xenix when Linyos Torovoltos released his public domain operation system, Lunix 0.1, made from Macintosh code he stole by hacking into Steve Woznaik's computer. I was so impressed that I felt I had to contribute, and ended up writing most of the USB code. By the time I turned thirteen, I had begun to see that my course had wandered far from that of which society would approve. In short, I was heading for prison. This realisation made me clean up my act fast! It was 1989 and I had my whole life ahead of me.

I stopped using computers completely for the remainder of my teenage years, refusing even to take high school computing classes (partially because there are never any women in computing classes, and I feel that a class without women invites juvenile behaviour, such as hacking and the attendant hygeine problems). It has been well worth it. As soon as I gave up computing, my peers began to accept me again. My acne cleared up, and the additional exercise I was getting was helping me lose my "hacker gut".

While many of my old hacker cohorts from the infamous newsgroups of the eighties were being arrested and convicted for their crimes, I was living the good life, amongst friends, and secure in the approval of my elders and my community. I joined the local Soccer team, and we went on to win the state tournament with a record 20 touchdowns, of which I scored 4. Life was good, and getting better.

I attended Harvard university, returning to computing to study the profession seriously, in the hopes of getting a computing certification such as the vaunted MCSE. Harvard's computing program gave me the background I needed to achieve what I had only dreamed of as a teenage ne'er-do-well. I doubt that I would have done so well had I revealed my earlier associations with such underworld figures as Torovoltos and his colleague, Eric Stallman Richter (known by the hacker "handle" ESR).

It has been a long road back from my degenerate past, but I take each day as it comes. It had been ten years since I'd thought of hacking, until the recent unpleasantness at this site. I'm afraid I may be sliding back into old habits, and will start watching myself more carefully.

To those who have chosen to hack the site, I offer this advice: you can be normal. You don't need "hacking" to make you complete, and your peers want to accept you, but they can't if you aren't willing to obey society's rules. Do what's best for us and for yourself. Quit hacking now.

That is a very moving tale indeed. It is inspiring to see that someone can turn away from the path of juvenile delinquency and lead a normal life again.

If only your tale could be somehow spread among a wider audience, targeted at the hackers who, even now, are attacking our site. It would do them good to stop skulking in the corners and cracks, outside the moderating influence of civilisation, and live a healthy, robust life within the certainties of Church, State and Family.

Maybe NAWL and chuckx should read your post and take its advice to heart. I think it would do them good.

But it's an outright lie. Linux nor USB existed in 1989. I would proceed to offer proof, but I don't feel like wasting my time anymore. All my posts are either ignored (here's another one) or countered with false allegations and rampant, inaccurate speculation.

I would also like to emphasize that I never hacked this site. I would provide explanation for this too, but I've done it before numerous times. Regardless, you'll just claim ignorance and run back to the comforting posts of the Adequacy.org editors.

No more "hacking," ok? You know it's evil and just because you've done it before is no reason to keep on doing it. You're going to get caught sooner or later, and you'll have to pay the price for all the havoc you've created. And what about the fear?

Adequacy.org is not a "hacker" hang out. We rarely see you here, and when you show up, especially in numbers, how do you think it makes us feel? How do you think the normal users feel? They worry about the fate of their own computers, what with your "hacking box" connected straight to theirs through the Net-Work. They fear for their children's computers too.

What about the children? Don't you ever think about them? What happens when the violent threats and terrorist posts you make today are seen by the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society? Won't they imitate you? Won't your terrorist words be used against you by them some day? They will follow in your footsteps, and then your cows will come home to roost in your own belfry.

Chilling? Yes, and it's supposed to be chilling. It is your future, my corrupted friend. Stop while you still can. And please leave our peaceful Web-Site alone. Your cruelty and viciousness causes more pain than you can imagine, and deep down, I know you don't really want that.

If you could point out one 'violent threat' or 'terrorist post' I've made, that would a bit of validity to your claim. All I've done is said, "Hey, you guys are using Apache along with other open source software, why are you knocking it?" If you consider that violent and terrorizing, I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.

And please leave our peaceful Web-Site alone.

I haven't done anything to Adequacy.org. The only thing I did was follow a link you posted in your article. If that's illegal, delete the link. I still haven't heard from any lawyers.

I tried to explain all this before, but it seems you haven't listened either.

I don't know about computers and such bits and bobs really, but what you are doing is worrying our technically knowledgible editors - elenchos, zikzak, jsm, em - and yet, you persist despite all remonstrations.

I would have a lot more respect for your position and you ideas if you just stopped doing the hacking that is annoying our editors and argued with everyone in a rational manner, instead of holding us all hostage to your hacking skills.

Please, I ask you as one Human Being to another to stop your activities, they are really making me scared. We have all put so many hours of work into this site, we don't want to see it all collapse about our ears. It would be so horrible, so much work lost because some hackers can't leave us alone.

please stop? Please? Have you no heart?

This is just a simple plea, one man to another. I hope you have some decency left and desist the blackmail and walk back from the edge.

<b>I was even on alt.comp.xenix when Linyos Torovoltos released his public domain operation system, Lunix 0.1, made from Macintosh code he stole by hacking into Steve Woznaik's computer.</b>

<p>His name is Linux Torvalds and Linux was written using Minix as design model. There was no Mac code in it.<p>

<b> I was so impressed that I felt I had to contribute, and ended up writing most of the USB code. By the time I turned thirteen, I had begun to see that my course had wandered far from that of which society would approve. In short, I was heading for prison. This realisation made me clean up my act fast! It was 1989 and I had my whole life ahead of me.</b>

Let me get this straight. When you stopped it was 1989. The first version of Linux didn't appear until 1991. The USB coding came later. The timeline presented in you story makes no sense.

<p>I'm sorry but your utter ridiculous attempt tell a story is just plain awful. Your concept of "hacking" his also hilarious.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Some day you will look back on this conversation. Will it be from a jail cell, where you will be asking yourself "should I have listened to the nice man"? Or will you see the light, and someday feel guilty for having ignored the voice of reason and instead turned like a rabid dog, biting the hand that held out hope to you?

but be careful what type of information you post here on Adequacy.edu.

It is bad enough that ordinary folks have powerful programming tools pre-installed on their PC's, for no useful reason I can think of. Perhaps Micro-Soft feels so threatened and cowed by the constant criticism they seem to get no matter what they do that they simply fall all over themselves in their attempts to please the whole world. It's too bad. Giving out text-editors is practically an engraved invitation to 'hack', as they say.

But leaving that aside, few normal users realize the power of such tools.

Obviously this is in response to:

As for your right to read information sent to you, need I remind you that it is illegal for you to read the source code of the microsoft programs that are on your computer, despite the fact that it would be a simple matter of just opening the programs in a text editor such as MS Word? This is no different.

This (as well as the rest of your post) is utterly hilarious and it really doesn't do well in your "I'm a Computer Scientist" argument. You cannot view the source code of a program that has already been compiled. You must have a copy of the uncompiled source code in order to few it with a text editor. MS does not include the source code with Windows. It's not like you can use MS Word to open Windows Media Player and expect to view the source code for it.

Computer Scientist my ass. HaHa :)

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Obviously you need to go back and read my post. According to elenchos you could use a text editor to view the source code for a Windows program already on your machine. However, this is not so. My argument was that you cannot view the source code of a program once it has been compiled.

In other words (as I said before) you cannot open Media Player in Word and expect to be presented with source code. In fact you will be presented with gibberish.

So I actuality I did not deny that Word would allow you to view the UNCOMPILED source code to a porgram. However, calling it a HACKER TOOL in the sense that the Adequacy.org retard make it out to be is wrong. It's not like you can use it to gain access to the source code for MS software nor use it to take down a network. You think a Computer Scientist would know better.

Gee I guess that there are so many programs that we should do away with then huh? Maybe get rid of the entire MS Office Suite then too? No games either especially if they're ONLINE! Do it do it. Then people will say "where the fuck are all the programs?" and switch to real OSes like MacOS, Linux distros, or hell AtheOS.

Now you wanna redo that score card or are you to much of a dumbass to admit when you've been burned?

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Then where are all the viruses and trojans coming from? What are they written on? Could it be text editors? Or even word processors?

You are a sick, sick little hacker fellow, you know? You say Lunix is safe from hacking because it is open source, and Windows has bad security and it is easy to hack into becuase it is not open source. But Windows doesn't give you any source code, so you can't hack Windows binaries. But... but...

You don't have to have the source code to write a virus or trojan horse for an OS. Security holes can be found in MS software without even bothering.

Outlook Express automatically launches executables. Did I need the source code to figure THAT out? HELL NO! Do I need the source code to know that ActiveX can be used to plant malicious code onto a Windows machine? NOPE!

Are they "unhackable" (hoo learned you eenglish?) in the sense that you can open them up a make modifications to the actual source code in order to fix errors? YES, at least to the general public. Only MS employees are allowed to few the source code. Very few of them in fact. Not even the bug testers employed at MS are allowed to view it. You think they would find more if the could do so.

I agree with NAWL but I would also like to offer this little piece of advice. Get your head out of your ass before you post and go back to school and learn a thing or two about computers before claiming that you are a Computer Scientist. Maybe then you would not seem like so much of an idiot.

Try to understand the conversation. Narwahl's contradictory statement is that on the one hand open source is safe from hacking because it is open, yet he then wants to say that hackers can't touch Windows binaries because there is no source code available. Yet he maintains that Windows still vunerable to hacking. Why? Because things like Outlook run code that you created with a text editor, without ever having to see the Windows source.

So then when I describe this blatant contradiction, YOU drug-addled Lunix hackers come along and, fearing your house of cards about to fall, pretend that I am the one who said that, not Narwhale! For shame! What a pathetic ploy you resort to when cornered, like the rabid, thieving dogs you open source zealots are!

To think that A.O.L. pays such people as you to work for them! All the more reason for security clearance and professional certification for all computer jobs. Then maniacs like you would be pushing a broom at A.O.L., rather than keys.

But then, maybe sweeping up is what you do there. That would explain much.

I do, I do, I do--Bikini Kill

that's hilarious! (none / 0) (#193)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 18th, 2001 at 11:23:49 PM PST

Why? Because things like Outlook run code that you created with a text editor, without ever having to see the Windows source.

So does every other Windows program. What the hell do you think people use to write programs? As a computer scientist you should know that all in all they're all TEXT EDITORS. Hell I could be so bold as to say that every program written by MS and every other company was written using a text editor. There is one exception, BASIC. It was written using pencil and paper and tranfered to punch cards.

It is bad enough that ordinary folks have powerful programming tools pre-installed on their PC's, for no useful reason I can think of.

What are these POWERFUL programming tools. Oh, I know. Every friggin program in MS Office? I'm wondering if you would tell your kid he can't use Office to write is book report because it includes POWER programming tools. You're full of shit.

Here's a solution. Maybe you should make a list of EVERY program and utility that you consider to be a powerful programming hacker tool or is just plain bad and unnecessary. See how much of a fucking operating system you have left. No more internet, email, ability to run ANY programs. It would be called ElenchOS (HaHa).

YOU drug-addled Lunix hackers come along and, fearing your house of cards about to fall, pretend that I am the one who said that, not Narwhale!

Sorry I use Linux not LUnix. I don't have an old 8-bit computer. You also seem to be VERY forgetful and try to steer this so that you don't look stupid but another poster does.

Perhaps Micro-Soft feels so threatened and cowed by the constant criticism they seem to get no matter what they do that they simply fall all over themselves in their attempts to please the whole world. It's too bad. Giving out text-editors is practically an engraved invitation to 'hack', as they say.

This was in response to a statement that you could use legitimate programs in Windows to view source code to programs on your computer. Not unless you have the source code for the program. I'm sure that Bill and Company were think "gee maybe we should include any word processing software because someone might use it for other purposes". Yeah right.

So do carry on, but please show more discretion in how precise you are with the details. Generalizations are sufficient to make your point. And perhaps if these "hackers" really want to know all the gory details, they will "get clean" and apply to a University, and maybe save themselves from a lifetime of regrets.

Now that's funny. Hacker should clean up their act and apply to Universities. Like Linus Torvalds did and later began working on Linux, as a HOBBY? Or maybe all the hackers (I mean scholars) working on the various BSDs? Or maybe Kurt Skauen when he began working on AtheOS? And Kurt has done it ALL BY HIMSELF. Not bad far that many years of work.
Oh an when you respond to this why don't you try sticking to the issue at hand. The "I'm a Psychologist now too" and the "Bill Gates as a father figure bullshit" is getting very old and very tired. Why not step up to the plate and TRY to say something intelligent for a change. You know something a REAL Computer Scientist would say.

Mabye when you are more "up to speed" with the current thinking about the future of computing, you will be more equipped to take part in Adequacy discussions. What you are having trouble accepting is that YES, we do intend to ban all hacking tools from general public circulation. Not just compilers and debuggers, and not just source code, but text editors themselves. Word processing is entirely possible still, but it will have to be conducted with documents saved in binary only formats, not in any kind of ascii text. Micro-Soft's highly advanced "Word" product already takes advantage of the binary format for saving the larger documents, you know.

Who will lose by having a machine that can't edit text files, nor compile or interpret code? Not normal people. More than 99.95 per cent of users never need these tools, since they only need to browse the web, send email and do BUSINESS, i.e. productive work, not hacking. Only the weird, dangerous and terroristic hacker underground will be harmed by eliminating all such coding tools and guns too from those lacking a legitimate official need and a license to use them.

No you can't do anything about it. Look how much influence the hackers of the world had on legislation like the DMCA. Zero, because no politician, and in fact no normal, decent person cares what a dirty GNU hacker thinks.

Oh, and you should realize that I have never attempted to convince any Adequacy outsider (that's what you are) that I am a "real" computer scientist. The opinions of the "inAdequate", as you are called, don't matter to this sites Editors (that's me). Go ahead and think what you want about me. Those of us at the top of the intellectual pyramid rather expect the contempt of those near the middle parts and below. If you thought the way we do, how ever would we tell ourselves apart from all of you?

Aside from the dirty hacker beard, I mean.

I do, I do, I do--Bikini Kill

I've have read that crap (none / 0) (#195)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 19th, 2001 at 03:07:03 PM PST

Top of the intellectual pyramid...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes you are so smart. Then why is it that 95% of every article on this site is in some way factually inaccurate? Ok smarty pants. You can make claims all you want to.

I guess that it really IS true that stupid people think they are smarter than everybody else.

Oh, and I have yet to see anything about YOUR movement. MS is STILL putting these tools in their OSes and has no plans to limit them. In fact they just added support for RAW Sockets. Gee, yeah I think it's going the other way.

Get your heads out of your asses and come out of the caves and join the real world. Or are you all locked up in a Looney Bin? Crazy people always think those on the outside are the ones that are truly insane.

Taking 'hacking' to mean 'cracking', the source code is never available. In many case this is the main challenge.

Having deciphered the 'gibberish' as you call it, or the 'hex' as Computer Scientists term it, a text editor (MS Word will do) is then used to construct a 'patch' which when 'applied' constitutes the 'hack'.

However, as someone have intimated this is not the only appication of text editors to 'hacking'.
elenchos 2
NAWL 0

The part of the 404 Error Message is a default message sent out by the webserver. The only part of that message that is absolutely postively unique to your site I have made bold:

Not Found

The requested URL ../../images/mortimer/www2001/index.html was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80

Notice that I did not bold Apache/1.3.20 because other sites run this version of Apache. The parts of the message in bold are dynamic. In otherwords they change. The first [bold] one describes the process which lead to the message being sent (a description of the problem). The second one identifies the webserver that issued the error.

By leaving this as default you have allow anyone to view the information present by the error message for some legitimate reason. This includes following a broken link or typing a URL incorrectly by even one letter.

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

what lack of knowledge you have (none / 0) (#165)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 01:14:18 AM PST

*******As for your right to read information sent to you, need I remind you that it is illegal for you to read the source code of the microsoft programs that are on your computer, despite the fact that it would be a simple matter of just opening the programs in a text editor such as MS Word? This is no different.******

Uh, no. You must actually have the source code in order to view it in a text editor. It's not like you can use MS Word to view an executable (EXE) and expect to be confronted by the source code.

I believe it's possible you may be thinking of batch (BAT) and system (SYS) files. These are user configuration files intended to be changed according to the user's system configuration.

Here' a really good example..........

Windows allows for the use of 26 letters of the alphabet to be used to identify drives. However, by default it is set to 5 (A-E). So that allows you to have:
Floppy
2 HDDs
DVD Rom drive
CD-RW Drive
----------
FIVE (A-E)

Now let's say you wanna add a digital camera with a flash memory card and a ZIP/Tape drive. This would bring your total to SEVEN (A-G). So it is necesssary to edit the config.sys file. Find the line that reads 'lastdrive=' and change it to how ever many you need (in this case G). Most people however simply change it to Z.

Now I won't get into any discussions about how what if you have more than 26 drives and mounting drives. Anyone with any decent computer knowledge could tell you that.

The copyright of the standard Apache 404 page lies with the legally recognised Apache Software Foundation, not with you. You are permitted to make minor changes to it thanks to the fair use defense, but don't try anything funny.

IE does not display the proprietary 404 page sent to your browser by websites. Instead, it conceals the copyrighted information beneath a standard microsoft error page.

I suppose then everyone else copied adequacy.org then huh? You'll find a similar message on a slew of other sites.

So rather than:

Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80

You may see:

Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.somewhere.com Port 80

Hell, you might also see it display that it's using a different version of Apache such as Apache/1.3.19

The only part of the Error Message unique to this site I have made bold

Not Found

The requested URL ../../images/mortimer/www2001/index.html was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.20 Server at www.adequacy.org Port 80

404 error

The error message that is commonly displayed when a Web browser cannot locate a Web page or CGI script. The link to a Web page (URL) is static like a telephone number in a telephone book. A Web site can use software to search each link that it references for validity, but there is no program that can automatically find the new address for the missing link. The Webmaster can also replace the 404 message with something more understandable.

The Webmaster can also replace the 404 message with something more understandable.

Well since this was obviously NOT done nor am I using a web browser that does it for the webmaster, I am presented with the DEFAULT 404 Error Message.

In closing I would like to apologize for completely and utterly shooting down your copyright and proprietary argument. Not to mention the ToS means nothing. If you want to block specific browser then have the webserver do so! Also if you don't want someone viewing that message than tell your webmaster to stop using the default and CHANGE IT!

Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Also, you lie. IE does not display the proprietary 404 page sent to your browser by websites. Instead, it conceals the copyrighted information beneath a standard microsoft error page. Either you have never looked at a web site using IE, or you have illegally altered your browser to eliminate this security feature.

Bullsh*t. I just tried it in IE 6.0 on Win32. Open Tools > Internet Options > Advanced and turn OFF "Show friendly HTTP error messages". Unchecking that box brought up no dialog that the user may be violating the EULA for IE.

Let's put it this way. Given that at Adequacy.org, we are as concerned about the confidentiality of such information as we are, what makes you think the information you have illegally acquired and disseminated (we have your IP) is not faked in the first place? Adequacy.org's staff has amply demonstrated itstechnical prowess before. --em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

Please, tell me what I did that was illegal. All I did was browse your site and read the information provided to me. It took no special effort on my part. Not once did I have to "View Source", use an external program to get at HTTP headers or any such means.

Your web server openly reports that it's Apache (this is obvious thanks to the link posted by elenchos). On the bottom of each page on this site, it prominently displays "Powered by Scoop". Netcraft.com keeps a tally on what software powers most web sites. I just searched their database (the search function is publically accessible and meant for anybody to use it).

That's all I did. My posts are the result of me taking the aformentioned information and posting comments about it. If this is considered illegal, your conception of the law is absurd.

- chuckx -

Technical Expertise? (none / 0) (#206)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 03:49:50 AM PST

In your cited article, you advise using a WinModem? And you call that expertise?

I am faced with two choices. This site is an extremely elaborate inside joke, or I will have to redact my statement to a friend that mild schizophrenics* can't authour coherent websites. Although "coherent" may be a strong term as applied to this particular site.

*In case you were unaware, which is the case, I am sure:
schizophrenic
A serious mental illness which results in delusional thought patterns, hallucinations and inappropriate affect. These patients will often suffer from social and occupational difficulty in addition to personal disability.

Delusional thought patterns and inappropriate affect often manifest as:
schizophrenic language
The artificial language of schizophrenic patients - neologisms (words of the patient's own making with new meanings).

D00d, that just means that your "proprietary top secret" weblog software is broken.

(Try grepping through /var/log/http/*)

--Peace and much love...

What was that about "trolling" I read he (none / 0) (#127)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 08:53:37 PM PST

If by "physically examining" your servers you mean looking at the first page of your site and seeing a logo for a well known Open Source software called Scoop, then absolutely, I "physically examined" your server. And, do you really need to ask whether or not I work for your ISP? On a related note, @Home may go dark on Friday. I'd be looking for a new ISP if I were you.

By the way, you talk about "casting your light as a beacon of hope, yada, yada, yada" then turn around and tell people not to look. Rather duplicitous, don't you think?

Actually I was more intrigued with the rather opportunistic placement of your previous "wimpy threat" after the rather less than threatening thread on the fact that this site DOES run on Open Source software. Nothing like the threat of censorship to change the subject, eh?

It grieves me to know (really, it does) that you've been on the business end of DoS attacks, death threats and hate mail. Now what was that saying about people who live in glass houses?

One small observation (5.00 / 2) (#99)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 08:36:40 AM PST

A typical Adequacy.org article is a piece of this ongoing conversation amongst these top public intellectuals, and we don't want intruders coming along disrupting the synergistic power of that exclusive dialogue.

I can certainly appreciate the desire to have your conversation in peace without intruders, but one thing bothers me: Why would you keep Adequacy as a publicly-accesible site? As it is right now, anyone can simply point their browser, and start posting comments. Yet, I would think that, if one wanted this to be a private discussion, then the accounts would be handed out on an invitation-only basis. But then again, maybe the all-powerful intellectuals here have done this for their own malefic purposes and greater schemes. How would I know? I'm apparently inadequate...

I point out a flaw in the basis of this "intellectuals only" bit, and the best you can come up with is a three word, flippiant remark on something I said in closing? So much for the great and powerful minds. I've heard better comebacks from drunken idiots.

I would think that, given that you aren't even under some type of time limit (as you would be in normal spoken conversation), that you, or at least ONE of your fellow geniuses would be able to come up with something a bit more poignant to say, either pointing out a flaw in my logic, or failing that, at least coming up with something better than "INdeed you are".

So come on now... engage that brain. Step out of whatever headlights you somehow got pithed in and try to string a couple more words together. You know, something that might actually be more insightful than high school lockerroom banter.

"Rational thinking" is a liberalist myth; in reality, logical thinking is the lowest form of thought in existence.

Even one-celled bacteria can rationally optimize their energy consumption rates. Only humans can enjoy Britney Spears or laugh at dirty jokes.

--Peace and much love...

Bravo (none / 0) (#143)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 10:46:43 AM PST

It's rare that I see someone contradict themselves THAT quickly. First, you claim that you don't belive in logic. Then you procede to show it as the simplest form of thought.

And, yes, rational thought DOES exist. It is, indeed the simplest, and therefore, the starting point for all other thoughts. After all, if one is to conquer the more elaborate areas of any subject, one must first have a grasp of the basics of the subject. One cannot perform calculus without knowing how to add. One cannot discuss literature without having read the book.

And finally, as far as the "liberalist myth" bit... drop it. It seems to be thrown around so much here that it might as well be a goatse.cx link.

Strange that the liberalist mindset is so incredibly hostile to religion that you subconciously filter all speech to remove all direct and indirect references to God.

P.S. About "get thrown around here so much" -- does that make it wrong?

P.P.S. The problem is that you're still stuck in "rational thought" mode, while the rest of us non-liberalists have moved on so far that we don't bother with "rational thinking", it comes naturally to us. To continue your analogy, you are trying to argue against functional analysis based on primitive laws of arithmetic.

--Peace and much love...

Poor analogy (none / 0) (#155)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 06:58:26 PM PST

To continue your analogy, you are trying to argue against functional analysis based on primitive laws of arithmetic.

So? Functional analysis is based on primitive laws of arithmetic. How many theorems about norm spaces don't depend on any results of arithmetic of real numbers? Or, to keep the analogy accurate, how many theorems about Banach spaces are contradicted by arithmetic yet are still accepted as correct?

Please, tell us more about your "far beyond rationsl" thinking. For example, what conclusions (other than this insufferable egotism) has it lead you to that the rest of us are yet to be enlightened with? In what skills (other than this admittedly successful troll) has it manifested itself?

I only read about half of your article, every other line or so, but especially the links. I thought it was well argued, or something. And like, uhh... I think I will go back to abcnews.go.com, which oddly enough is where I saw the first pop-under that led me to Adequacy.org, or was that 1800flowers.com. I can't really remember, but either way, I'm staying here and I've ordered a nice Abbey T. Bearymuch figurine for Adam Rightman. I think they would be so snuggly cute together. Like a Nan Goldin photograph. :)

Ironic (5.00 / 2) (#137)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 05:42:58 AM PST

How Adequacy editors spammed K5 advertising their site on multiple ocassions.

It seems that K5 is good enough when they need to promote their activities but not when users need a place to communicate with each other.

If you are looking for a place to begin your investigation, try looking here or here for starters. Unfortunately (for all parties) K5 is still down, so you will have to wait until it comes back.---
I am inadequate.

You spend the whole article bragging about your first link pointing to a protected page, yet the first link is to http://www.adequacy.org. Still having trouble with the counting thing, eh?

Second, you link to http://www.kuro5hin.org, knowing full well that the site is down.

I understand that my comments only reveal my true stupidity... Someday I shall follow your example and date an artistic female programmer. Then I can revel in my role within the culturally elite.

Irony, no? (none / 0) (#184)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 06:11:44 AM PST

"There. Can I be any more clear about this? Is there any room for misinterpretation here? No. It is crystal clear: you don't belong at Adequacy.org, and Adequacy.org doesn't want you. Other places want you, and you know you are happier there. So don't stay. Go. Go! Get lost already, please? "

Isnt that a little ironic? Hmmm... i wasn't invited to this website? And this website doesn't want me? It would seem to me, that by registering a domain, you are inviting the whole world to come in and see your amusing website. if the website doesn't want me, and i don't belong here, then what is the purpose of it's existence? Why don't the "inner circle" type people just go sit in some log cabin jerking each other off instead of polluting the internet with this obscenely un-american noise? Oh, wait, mutual masturbation is a deadly sin! (wouldn't want any good, God fearing chistians to burn in hell. Then they wouldnt be able to try and brainwash eveyone that come within a click or two of their site)

You've still missed the point NAWL was making - the fact that a compiled binary is a compiled binary and it will only look like gibberish if you try to read it. Also, a simple text editor (or word processor or whatever you want) won't do you much good - you will also need a compiler that "translates" the text you've written into machine-readable code (this is true for programming languages). Scripting languages - such as Visual Basic - does not need a compiler, instead they are translated at run-time (but you still need something that translates them).

Linux is not "safe" from "hacking" - nothing is - however, since Linux is open-source, anyone can (and will) post a patch for a security breach within hours of it being exposed, which is not something that MS does. A good example of this was the Pentium F00F-bug (if you remember it), where (working) Linux patches was released within two hours of the bug being discovered while MS waited a couple of days before releasing a patch. This phenomenon is repeated over and over again every time a security hole is discovered - MS goes by "Security through Obscurity" while the open-source movement fixes things instead.

Windows binaries can easily be "hacked" - have you ever heard of disassembling a program? That's the process when you convert the compiled binary into Assembler code (the most low-level programming language). Then you can run the program instruction by instruction and try to figure out how it works - and potentially modify it.

Unix-based systems (such as Linux) is also - contrary to the common beleif - the biggest target for "hacking" attempts because it poses something that isn't easily penetrated - Linux isn't a hacking platform and a Linux user doesn't try to hack into other people's systems just because he's running Linux.

There is also a reason why there are no Linux viruses; that is because Linux has a built-in security model, something that Windows systems lack. Programs can't do anything they want (as long as they are not run be the super-user root, but if you run "binary-only" programs - if you can't analyze the source code then you won't know what the program really does - as root, then you're a moron) in contrast to the average Windows system where one user space process can take the whole system down.

There's a reason why my Linux installations run perfectly without my interaction for years, but my Windows installations rarely run for more that a couple of weeks or months without going down for some obscure reason.

Sorry for the length of the post. Also, I'm not registered with Adequacy, but feel free to mail me at andr@uv.ssf.scout.se (yes, I'm a scout)

...such incredibly ignorant nonsense such as "there are no Lunux viruses" or that you hack Windows programs by disassembling the binaries, or your perpetuation of the tired old myth about Lunix's astronomical uptimes. Even Lunix Zealot doesn't believe that one any more.

Please go away. Adequacy is a site for the intellectual elite, not for the followers of bad Lunix propaganda. If you must hang about posting misinformation, at least post something halfway believable.

I don't see the speciality in your girlfriends' paintings. They're nice, but they don't open up to me. That happens. Not everyone can understand every piece of art, and seriously, if you think that, then you're sorrily mistaken. ^^

I can agree with her comment about being a prostitute - artists ought to draw and paint and write and compose how they want to. Unless, of course, they're in need for money. Because in the end, we're all prostitutes - if we happen to produce a product that pleases, then we don't have to do something we don't like for our job.

But another thing I'm missing - if you people are so cool, how come that your site is designed so lackingly? I'm not shouting for flash. I'm shouting for real basics. ^^ But you know what I mean since you're so cool, ne? Or am I missing a trend to artificially create a bad look? Probably. Because I don't design by trend, I design by my own preferences (and don't look at my homepage for reference, because no effort went into that design).

I can safely assume that I am interested in abstract arts - I like to see modern theatre (an awful lot, actually), and I also like some abstract art (at some point it does stop speaking to me, but that's no shame, that's a lack of common basis).

I do agree that it's not a shame not fitting in with people who start a discussion without trying to even look past their own basis of conversation first.

No, I don't mind talking to Christians. I think of the religion as as valid as my own points of view (I don't need to go into them here, as it would go off topic). Your "liberalism myth" (I think someone called it that) is true for a lot of people, and they are to be ashamed of.

But there's a big but to that - not all liberalists need to rely on "rational thought" so much (although I don't know wether the ide athat everything can be explained in rational thought (even emotions) is true or not.

I just think, rationally or not. ^^ Sometimes, when I really have to figure out reasons for things that happen within myself, I conciously switch to rational thought - but usually, I just let my thoughts flow, and I'm fine with that.

Call me an ignoramus now. Tell me I don't have a point. If you're not taking this up seriously, then you should not be running a forum, and you know it better than I, ne?

There are two types of emoticons ... the more commonly used set involves ":D", ":(" and so on.

The second set has the faces horizontal... usually with one eye, then the mouth, then the second eye ... sometimes the 'mouth' is left out ...

An example with mouth would be ¬_¬ which is a sideway glance. Without mouth is ^^ which is a bright smile.

Kitsune

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.